Entire Amount Was In His Custody: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Police Inspector For Allegedly Not Depositing Seized Amount To Treasury

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a case against Police Inspector who was accused of not depositing the seized amount of Rs. 72 lakhs to the State Treasury.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition preferred by the accused seeking to quash FIR and complaint registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 201, and 110 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “In the teeth of the afore-narrated maze of facts, what is discernible is, that the petitioner did not deposit the amount seized to the Treasury after marking it as property folio. Hence, it would prima facie reveal that the entire amount of ₹72/- lakhs was in the custody of the petitioner from 20-10-2022 till 26-02-2023 for about 4 months and the earlier Enquiry Officer, who conducted preliminary enquiry has himself observed that CCTV footage clearly indicates that the petitioner comes to the Police Station long after his relieving, keeps the amount of seizure and goes away. On the next day the Income Tax Officials take custody of the said amount. The marked difference between the PF that was entered on seizure of the amount and the return of it there was complete change of denominations of notes.”

Advocate P. Prasanna Kumar appeared on behalf of the petitioner while State Public Prosecutor B.A. Belliappa appeared on behalf of the respondents.

In this case, the petitioner was a Government servant in the cadre of Police Inspector in the Home Department. In 2021, while serving as Police Inspector in a Police Station, a crime was registered under Sections 381 and 420 of the IPC and the petitioner was Investigating Officer in the said case. During the investigation, a recovery of Rs. 72 lakhs was made and the crime was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP). Thereafter, in 2023, the petitioner was transferred and the Magistrate directed the police to deliver the seized amount of Rs. 72 lakhs to the custody of the officials of the Income Tax Department (ITD).

On the previous day of the said order, the petitioner carried a bag to the police station which allegedly contained Rs. 72 lakhs and placed the same. Then the officials of ITD visited the police station and the panchas opened the bag consisting of the said amount. Later, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) directed ACP to conduct preliminary enquiry as to why the amount was carried into the police station. The petitioner was questioned and the inquiry report went in his favour as the allegations were not proved. Thereafter, a crime was registered by a different ACP and the allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner had kept with him entire amount notwithstanding PF being drawn on it and did not deposit it to the State Treasury. As a result, the petitioner knocked the doors of the High Court.

The High Court in the above regard noted, “The seizure panchanama that was drawn on 3 days i.e., on 14-10-2022, 18-10-2022 and 20-10-2022 revealed bundled notes of ₹500/- denomination and were from Axis Bank. But, the amount that is kept back in the Police Station after four months by the petitioner was of different Bank and completely of different denominations.”

The Court added that two factors would emerge – one, the petitioner keeping the amount with him without depositing it to the Treasury and the other, tampering with PF by changing the denomination of notes. It said that these factors prima facie would meet the ingredients of the crime that is alleged against the petitioner and therefore, the matter would require investigation, in the least, as the factors are glaring and clear insofar as ingredients of offences are concerned.

“In the light of seriously disputed maze of facts which prima facie depict a crime thriller, it would amaze this Court for entertaining the subject petition, as it does require investigation in the least”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the writ petition.

Cause Title- Shankar Naik G.K. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate P. Prasanna Kumar

Respondents: SPP B.A. Belliappa and HCGP Thejest P.

Click here to read/download the Judgment